Friday, April 27, 2007

Democrats approve surrender, threatens Pentagon's war budget.

The Democrats in the Senate have made Surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq official as they passed the Iraq withdrawal bill… Islamic terrorists around the world are giving a thankful salute the Democrat Party! The bill will now go to President Bush for Veto ink.

Thursday's vote was 51-46. Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon joined Democrats in supporting the bill…no surprise. Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats, voted with Republicans opposing it.

Before the vote, Lieberman, the only person on the left that understands the threat before us, condemned the bill -- which he said laid out "a strategy based on catchphrases and bromides rather than military realities" -- as a guarantee of failure in the war in Iraq.

"In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost," Lieberman said, countering a remark to the contrary Reid made last week. "But if we follow the plan in this legislation, it will be lost and so, I fear, will much of our hope for stability in the Mideast."

Durbin said a new bill would be less "decisive" than the one passed Thursday, but he said its call for a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces could be attached to other bills -- such as the upcoming Pentagon budget or a defense policy bill.

So there you have it. Democrat Dick Durbin during a time of war threatening to play with the money our soldiers desperately need while in combat. If this is not treasonous some one explain to me what is?

The Pentagon has said it can fund the war through June. Without the additional appropriations, but the Pentagon will have to begin shifting money and deferring projects to find the funds to continue the wars.

Kind of like going to 15 month deployments. It is cheaper to keep Soldiers in theater longer than it is to mobilize units. Also, it takes money to train units getting ready to deploy. So, if Soldiers can not get the equipment they need to train efficiently for deployment then they can not replace Soldiers already deployed.

Play with the Pentagon Budget if you want to, but let’s make sure we know exactly who is at fault when U.S. Soldiers can not get the equipment they desperately need to keep them safe and accomplish their mission.

Before Wednesday's vote, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus went to a series of private briefings on Capitol Hill, during which he argued against setting a timetable, according to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers who attended.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said Thursday that Congress is using "the power of the purse" to end the war.

"When the mission ends, the funding ends, and that's perfectly reasonable," Feingold said. "Gen. Petraeus will have the funding as long as we feel there should be a mission there, but there shouldn't be a mission there anymore by the end of next March."

How the hell does Feingold know whether there should be a mission there by the end of next March? The decisions in the matter of war should be left to the Commander in Chief and the military, not a group of politicians 6,000 miles away that have their heads stuck so far up each others….well you get the picture.

No comments: